Disposed

Chitikeri Chennaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2024WP/7624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC challenging the deletion of a father's name from occupancy rights. The court disposed of the petition by directing the revenue authorities to reconsider the petitioner's representation after providing notice to all affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider the representation after putting the petitioner and all affected parties on notice and providing an opportunity to be heard.

Chitikeri Chennaiah Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7624 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chitikeri Chennaiah, S/o Balaiah aged bout 45^years, Occ^{Agriculture, R/o Janwada} village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal,^{Secretary, Department} of Revenue, Office at Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy.District.

¶13

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division,^{R.R.District.}

¶14

4 The Tahasildar, Shankarpally Mandal, R^R.District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{RespondentNo.2 to 4 in deleting} the name of the father of the^{petitioner in.respectof the propertyan extentof Ac.} 3B-15 Guntas comprised in survey No. 287in^{extentof Ac. 9-1 3 guntas,in survey} No. 288 Ac. 16-20^guntas, in survey No. 289^{Ac. 12-22 guntas,situatedat} Janwada village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy Districtas illegal,arbitrary,} u nconstitutiona I and against the^{provisions of law and consequently direct the} Respondent No-2 to 4 herein consider the^{representation dated31212024} submitted by the^petitioner.

¶17

lA NO: 't OF 2024

¶18

Petition under section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No 2 to 4 consider the representation dated 3t2t2024 submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THOODI CHANDRASEKHAR RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.SRINIVAS REDDy, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.7624 of 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri T.Chandra Shekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, leamed Assisrant Govemment Pleader for Revenue

¶26

2 According to the petitioner, 3'd respondent had issued Occupancy Right Certificate vide proceedings No.l/5310/2008, dated 27.06.2009 under Section 4(l) of A.P.(T.A) Abolition ol Inams Act,l955 in favour of Ch.Jangaiah, Ch.Balaish, Ch.yeltaiah sons of Ch.Gandhaiah and the premium amount is fixed for Rs. 1,150/-. The claimant was directed to remit the premium amount under a particular head mentioned therein.

¶27

The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the grandson of Ch.Jangaiah. But he has not fited the receipt in proof of payment of the said premium amount of Rs.1,150/-. Except the said certificate, he has not filed any document. However, he has submitted written representation dated 03.02.2024 with 3'd respondent with a request to implement the said ORC. Having received and acknowledged the said

¶28

¶29

representation, the 4'h respondent did not act upon the same. Therefore, the present Writ Petition

¶30

+. Whereas, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions '"vould submit that the 4th respondent will consider the said representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

5.^{As stated supra,} the^petitioner herein did not fi [e any receipt and other documents except filing proceedings dated 27.06.2009. He has not filed any proof to show that he is the grandson of Ch.Jangaiah. There is no mention about legal heirs of other occupancy right holders i.e., Ch.Balaish and Ch.Yellaiah sons of Ch.Gandhaiah

¶32

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4'h respondent to consider the aforesaid representation dated 03.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with taw, by putting the petitioner and all effected parties on notice and affording him an opportunity. If, the 2"d respondent is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons and pass a reasoned order, communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner. He sha[

¶33

¶34

¶35

complete the said exercise within a period of six (6) months from the

¶36

date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

¶37

costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶39

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶40

LAH ANSARI SD/- MOHD.SANAUL ASSISTANT G R

¶41

//TRUE^COPY// SEGTIO OFFICER

¶42

to'', The Prlncipal^{Secretary, State of Telangana'Departmentof Revenue Office} at Secretaiiat^{Buildings. Hyderabacl} -

¶43

1. ihe District^{Collector. Ranoa Reddy Drstrrct'} S iii;^{-R;;L"b-ri.'i''ib-ii"e1,ct''9y"1'-ogision'R R District}

¶44

q. ii;" rihi.iidar, Shankarpally^{Mandal' R'R.Districl} 5. one cc^{to sRlrHoffii'Cl-iAi'loils.e(H1nRAoAdvocate toPUCl} 6. Two ccs^{to cp rdn"'nEvitr-tje,'Highcourt for the state of Telangana} touTl

¶45

Two CD^CoPies

BSK LS

i \

rl I l l I

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412024

ORDER

1 HE STrl 14:
(
l
oo 2 3 APB 2[2{ ,'.
* 1,,
SFAT.- sfo

¶53

WP.No.7624 of 2024

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

ry-

Chitikeri Chennaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitikeri Chennaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadari Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Vasavi Old Age Home Charitable Trust, Vs The State of Telangana

Ponala Kankaiah Vs the State of Telangana

Aenkepally Premkumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ananthula Bharathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Bedigi Priyanka Vs State of Telangana